Allow as many people as they want to share a dwelling without planning consent or license

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the HMO interference by Local Government. So long as the ordinary rules governiing housing are followed allow people to occupy dwellings as they see fit. If four or five people wish to share, let them without the need of planning consent, licesing and stigma. The rules are daft as they rely upon defining the relationship of the tenants. Is a Morman man with three wives, a single houehold or three households? If the wives work and contribute to the overall cost, are they paying ren? If one tenant pays the rent and the others contribute, are they separate households.  Is any group of people to be defined by sleeping arrangements for the purpose of licensing?

The law is truly aweful. It has had to be revised time after time to say remove section 257 buildings (older converted blocks of flats) and other groups. Councils seem to have avendeta against those who wish to share.

The aim is laudible: improve housing standards, but this is not the way to do it.

There is great demand for bedsit type of accommodation. It should not be stigmatised.

Remove notification, compliance and licensing for landlords

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Allow several people to share a dwelling without permission

Stop the legal requirement to notify and in some cases licence or even apply for planning consent to allow three or more unrelated people to rent and share a dwelling. Housing Act of 2004 and revisions and instruments in 2006 2007 2008… A bad law aimed at doing what the law already provides for but in an unintrusive way.

I am referring to the current preoccupation with "HMO"s

If a local authority is paying the rent, then they have a right to check value for money but otherwise they should butt out! Tenaants can go to trading standards about bad landlords if there is a need. Why spend council tax money and interfere with civil liberties of prospective sharers and landlords.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the legal requirement to notify and in some cases licence or even apply for planning consent to allow three or more unrelated people to rent and share a dwelling. Housing Act of 2004 and revisions and instruments in 2006 2007 2008… A bad law aimed at doing what the law already provides for but in an unintrusive way.

I am referring to the current preoccupation with "HMO"s

If a local authority is paying the rent, then they have a right to check value for money but otherwise they should butt out! Tenaants can go to trading standards about bad landlords if there is a need. Why spend council tax money and interfere with civil liberties of prospective sharers and landlords.

Washbasin requirements for HMOs are ridiculous

Reg 8 Sched 3, SI2006, 373

Exempt "socially interactive groups" from requirement for washbasins in each bedroom of HMOs.  The ridiculous situation now is that a 4 bedroom house requires only 1 washbasin in the whole house.  A 6 bedroom house requires 8, including 1 in each bedroom.  How can that be justified?

Although the government has now watered that down to "if practicable" that leaves us at the mercy of local authority personnel, who are not always the most practical  or experienced of people.  Fortunately, Bristol City Council is not at present pursuing us for this but other landlords may not be so lucky.

It is not up to government to decide on the level of amenity provided except perhaps for truly vulnerable people.  This should be left to market forces. 

 

Why is this idea important?

Reg 8 Sched 3, SI2006, 373

Exempt "socially interactive groups" from requirement for washbasins in each bedroom of HMOs.  The ridiculous situation now is that a 4 bedroom house requires only 1 washbasin in the whole house.  A 6 bedroom house requires 8, including 1 in each bedroom.  How can that be justified?

Although the government has now watered that down to "if practicable" that leaves us at the mercy of local authority personnel, who are not always the most practical  or experienced of people.  Fortunately, Bristol City Council is not at present pursuing us for this but other landlords may not be so lucky.

It is not up to government to decide on the level of amenity provided except perhaps for truly vulnerable people.  This should be left to market forces. 

 

Fossilised studentification

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Why is this idea important?

The HMO planning policy introduced by Labour as affects so called 'studentification' has already been reduced by this new government, but there are still Article 4 uses of the regulations that need to go.

This NIMBY policy creates 'fossilised studentifcation' in that once those who have a protected monopoly in an area for their own HMO, they are not going to let it go back to family usage. It discourages competition and investment and creates a false market.

The regulation lacks other mechanisms – e.g., council or housing association accommodation designed for families, or proper investment in purpose built student accommodation.  Note that neither of these solutions incur a long term cost as they bring in rents too.  Universities, councils and investment enterprises are quite capable of addressing this themselves without artificial social engineering as is attempted by these regulations.

It also disadvantages home owners who wish to let out their home on a periodic or medium term basis. This restriction can actually be a disincentive for families to move into an area.  It also affects house prices in a way that is unfair to families – lowering the price by restricting the sales possibilities in an area where adjacent properties are fossilised into being HMO lets by this regulation.

The term 'studentification' is a pejorative which is underserved.  The argument that the area goes quiet when student leave is not much of an argument.  It probably originates with a few shop owners who do quite nicely when the students are there, but want a bit more business when they are not. Anyway,  it's nice when it goes quiet!

This policy is ill-thought out and an undue interference.  Get rid of it please.  We don't need it.

Houses in Multiple Occupation Licences

Abolish the concept of a House in Multiplle Occupation. The definition of an HMO applies to  property rented to two or more unrelated adults and is used by councils to create revenue in the form of licencing costs to lanlords – thereby increasing rents to tenants – and as an excuse to spawn a plethora of public sector jobs policing the strict requirements that HMO status conveys.

A family with six children can rent a property without the intrusive and costly rules and regulations of HMO status being policed by an army of council officials. Three adult friends sharing an identical house next door will be deemed to be separate households  -as they are unrelated – and the landlord required to obtain an expensive HMO licence.

Environmental health officers will then make regular and intrusive inspections ,demand fire doors be installed, windows be locked to stop people falling out and many other requirements as presumably two or more unrelated adults are incapable of living in an ordinary rented property without risking life and limb!

HMO legislation serves no purpose, is unneccessary, increases private sector rental costs and daunts potential landlords thereby reducing the pool of rented property available. Owner occupiers are not exposed to local council demands and intruisions – why should tenants have to suffer such interference and landlords and taxpayers pay for the jobs created to support such legislation?

Legislation related to the rental of property needs a comprehensive overhaul.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the concept of a House in Multiplle Occupation. The definition of an HMO applies to  property rented to two or more unrelated adults and is used by councils to create revenue in the form of licencing costs to lanlords – thereby increasing rents to tenants – and as an excuse to spawn a plethora of public sector jobs policing the strict requirements that HMO status conveys.

A family with six children can rent a property without the intrusive and costly rules and regulations of HMO status being policed by an army of council officials. Three adult friends sharing an identical house next door will be deemed to be separate households  -as they are unrelated – and the landlord required to obtain an expensive HMO licence.

Environmental health officers will then make regular and intrusive inspections ,demand fire doors be installed, windows be locked to stop people falling out and many other requirements as presumably two or more unrelated adults are incapable of living in an ordinary rented property without risking life and limb!

HMO legislation serves no purpose, is unneccessary, increases private sector rental costs and daunts potential landlords thereby reducing the pool of rented property available. Owner occupiers are not exposed to local council demands and intruisions – why should tenants have to suffer such interference and landlords and taxpayers pay for the jobs created to support such legislation?

Legislation related to the rental of property needs a comprehensive overhaul.

Classification of multi-tenant HMO property

Councils are being asked to poke their noses into too many peoples private lives.

If I live in a townhouse with my girlfriend and her baby twins, and we have a lodger, then the house must be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person.

Crazy. Legislation affecting 'renting' has become unpleasant – it has a begrudging feel. 

If I swapped one of the twins for an au pair, then the house must still be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person…  

Regulation in the private property rental sector has gone berserk.  Its badly targeted, new anti-slum 'HMO' council officers are popping up with hundreds of different types of implementation, charging hundreds of quid for admin, sending threatening letters and waving around £20,000 fines.

Why is this idea important?

Councils are being asked to poke their noses into too many peoples private lives.

If I live in a townhouse with my girlfriend and her baby twins, and we have a lodger, then the house must be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person.

Crazy. Legislation affecting 'renting' has become unpleasant – it has a begrudging feel. 

If I swapped one of the twins for an au pair, then the house must still be registered and inspected by a council officer, and I must install 15 fire alarms, control panel, emergency access lighting and signs, and have it inspected every month by a Fire alarms person…  

Regulation in the private property rental sector has gone berserk.  Its badly targeted, new anti-slum 'HMO' council officers are popping up with hundreds of different types of implementation, charging hundreds of quid for admin, sending threatening letters and waving around £20,000 fines.

Who does HMO legislation benefit?.

An HMO licence for a three bedroom flat in Edinburgh costs over £300 annually.

THe HMO legislation obliges a landlord to fit 30 minute fire doors, door closers and fire alarms and supply a fire extinguisher and fire blanket. In addition all properties are subject to an annual inspection.

In particular I object to the door closers, the annual inspections and the cost to landlords.

Living in a property with door closers fitted is unpleasant  in its self. Tenants often wedge such doors open creating increased fire hazard.  I have lived in Edinburgh for over 20 years and  only ever seen one house fire. I only remember one fire in rented property, in Glasgow, leading to casualties and in that case, a basement flat, the windows were barred preventing  easy escape.

If this legislation has led to a significant improvement in fire safety, it's been around long enough for there to be evidence to support it and we must therefore accept that it is a good thing. However if, for all the legislation, there has been no significant change to  in the number of fires or fire related casualties then the legislation should be modified or scraped all together.

In addition landlords are obliged to have have an annual gas safety test, a  portable appliance test, a periodic inspection report and an energy efficiency certificate.

I would suggest that a higher degree of the responsibility for the safety of the occupants of a property should fall to the occupiers of that property and that a more reasonable proposition would be that most of these issues could be covered by a five yearly inspection by the appropriate authority.

While property prices were steadily rising, the increased legislation and expense were suportable, now more and more landlords are getting out of the market.

I propose that all this legislation is due for review and would hopefully become more simple and less expensive, without compromising on safety.

Why is this idea important?

An HMO licence for a three bedroom flat in Edinburgh costs over £300 annually.

THe HMO legislation obliges a landlord to fit 30 minute fire doors, door closers and fire alarms and supply a fire extinguisher and fire blanket. In addition all properties are subject to an annual inspection.

In particular I object to the door closers, the annual inspections and the cost to landlords.

Living in a property with door closers fitted is unpleasant  in its self. Tenants often wedge such doors open creating increased fire hazard.  I have lived in Edinburgh for over 20 years and  only ever seen one house fire. I only remember one fire in rented property, in Glasgow, leading to casualties and in that case, a basement flat, the windows were barred preventing  easy escape.

If this legislation has led to a significant improvement in fire safety, it's been around long enough for there to be evidence to support it and we must therefore accept that it is a good thing. However if, for all the legislation, there has been no significant change to  in the number of fires or fire related casualties then the legislation should be modified or scraped all together.

In addition landlords are obliged to have have an annual gas safety test, a  portable appliance test, a periodic inspection report and an energy efficiency certificate.

I would suggest that a higher degree of the responsibility for the safety of the occupants of a property should fall to the occupiers of that property and that a more reasonable proposition would be that most of these issues could be covered by a five yearly inspection by the appropriate authority.

While property prices were steadily rising, the increased legislation and expense were suportable, now more and more landlords are getting out of the market.

I propose that all this legislation is due for review and would hopefully become more simple and less expensive, without compromising on safety.